InternationalUSRemember you can easily switch between MIP US and MIP International at any time

Where do you stand on plain packaging?



Emma Barraclough


Are tobacco companies part of an old-school IP camp? What’s the correct car-related analogy for an IP right you own, but whose use is restricted? Are plain packaging rules akin to environmental regulations that prevent the development of land and thus reduce the value of a plot?

These are some of the knotty commercial and legal questions being discussed on a LinkedIn post. They are in response to a story on Managing IP about Philip Morris’s legal strategy to oppose the UK government’s plans to force cigarette makers to sell their products in standardised packaging.

Responses from lawyers and IP consultants highlight the split in the profession about the IP objections raised by tobacco companies in their fight against plain packaging.

"While I don’t believe smoking should be prohibited, it is a major public health issue. But not, in my mind, an IP issue," writes Melbourne-based IP consultant Mike Lloyd.

"Trying to apply a property argument for basically spin-control is starting to push the comfort boundaries of disinterested professionals," adds IP broker Lawrence Lau, explaining why he believes that IP organisations seem reluctant to throw their weight too firmly behind the anti-plain packaging campaigners.

But New York-based IP lawyer Barry Krivisky suggests that plain packaging rules amount to a total prevention of use of a trade mark. "If you have a registration for a logo mark, but are prohibited from using it, what besides a trademark office piece of paper or record do you own?"

This amounts to a taking by the government, he says, and tobacco companies should, at the least, be compensated for it.

Lau responds with a smoking-related metaphor: "Only if they want to first cough up the money to offset for the negative health externalities."

You can join in the debate below, or on the IP Pro group on LinkedIn.

Comments






profile

Managing IP

ManagingIP

ManagingIP profile

Federal Circuit’s Brunetti ruling: barring immoral or scandalous marks is unconstitutional restriction of free spee… https://t.co/MivCKFINHg

Dec 15 2017 10:12 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
ManagingIP profile

Federal Circuit rules in Amgen v Sandoz on remand from SCOTUS https://t.co/uYIkfVhCHG https://t.co/2OZAscsz32

Dec 14 2017 09:58 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
ManagingIP profile

RT @mdloney: Canada moves closer to joining the Hague Agreement with the release of proposed new Industrial Design Regulations https://t.co

Dec 12 2017 10:22 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite

Popular Posts

Blog Archive

IP-related blogs

1709 Copyright Blog

Afro-IP

AIA blog

Art and Artifice

China IPR

Class 99

Domain Incite

FOSS Patents

Green Patent Blog

Incontestable

IP CloseUp

IP Dragon

IP finance

IP Kat

IP Komodo

IP tango

IP Watchdog

IPEG

MARQUES Class 46

Orange Book Blog

Patent Baristas

PatentlyO

PatLit

SPC Blog

Spicy IP

The Trademark Blog

The TTABlog